Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Which isn't the case here. There neither is a plane nor an image of a plane. The only act of surrealism is the capability of people to see something that isn't there.

Remember, CE: You are still on the run from my previous posts here. You surely have not forgotten that the same images that show no plane also show no office, office supplies, office furniture, office equipment or office workers, so by the exact same logic, there weren't any offices in the Pentagon before the 9/11 incident.

Everybody here knows why you run away from this. You realise with great precision that you cannot defend your silly, stupid, false logic.

...
Gedanken Experiment: Look at those photos. Conjure in your brain the number of people involved in fabricating this very public fraud. Add in the so-called witnesses. Add in the people there you can't see because they aren't in the photos. This is your denominator. Your numerator is the number of people willing to sing like little birdies when the Enquirer flashed $5g under their noses. The solution is what, 1/50? Raise the incentive to $10k. What happens to the solution? It nears one, but this is the story of the century, so keep raising that incentive. As it grows the likelihood that one canary sings closes on certainty, but has it happened? No.
...

Add to this the large number of 9/11 Truthers suspected by other 9/11 Truthers to be planted government disinfo agents! (Ranke and Marquis were great at spotting shills amongst their own.)

While we're at intentional deception: The link to your clownish "debunking" piece is broken.

In the 10 years or so since that analysis no one has been able to refute it. There may be some small measurement errors that were done manually, but they will not make a hill of beans difference in the calculations and final conclusion.

You says it's BS without stating reasons why. Ranke and Alpo did the same thing, because it destroyed all their invented flight paths. All it does, in addition to all of the other evidence is destroy the delusion, once and for all.

One would think that in 10 years an aeronautical engineer would have said, hey this is "out to lunch", but that hasn't happened. ALL of those turning flight paths are simply impossible and this analysis is proof. There are no major errors that would make a difference.

Ranke, Alpo, and you have no clue about Airliner performance and capabilities. This was very evident when the CIT goof balls were simply drawing lines on a map and saying this is the flight path. That was until Beachnut and I took a look one day and realized the ignorant drawings were beyond the capabilities of ANY transport certified aircraft.

In fact, all fighters could not fly some portions of the flight paths at reasonable airspeeds either. Yes, that how bad it is. One look at that chart and it's more than obvious to a normal person with a brain. Get a grip and stop embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.

In the 10 years or so since that analysis no one has been able to refute it. There may be some small measurement errors that were done manually, but they will not make a hill of beans difference in the calculations and final conclusion.

You says it's BS without stating reasons why. Ranke and Alpo did the same thing, because it destroyed all their invented flight paths. All it does, in addition to all of the other evidence is destroy the delusion, once and for all.

One would think that in 10 years an aeronautical engineer would have said, hey this is "out to lunch", but that hasn't happened. ALL of those turning flight paths are simply impossible and this analysis is proof. There are no major errors that would make a difference.

Ranke, Alpo, and you have no clue about Airliner performance and capabilities. This was very evident when the CIT goof balls were simply drawing lines on a map and saying this is the flight path. That was until Beachnut and I took a look one day and realized the ignorant drawings were beyond the capabilities of ANY transport certified aircraft.

In fact, all fighters could not fly some portions of the flight paths at reasonable airspeeds either. Yes, that how bad it is. One look at that chart and it's more than obvious to a normal person with a brain. Get a grip and stop embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.

In fact, Reheat has been called out on it immediately after he came up with the little deception, and over and over again, reacting with nothing but the charming abuse attempts we know so well from the "debunker" crowd. I'll give interested readers the time to catch up before I spoil the fun. Happy Easter!

In fact, Reheat has been called out on it immediately after he came up with the little deception, and over and over again, reacting with nothing but the charming abuse attempts we know so well from the "debunker" crowd. I'll give interested readers the time to catch up before I spoil the fun. Happy Easter!

I've been waiting for 10 years. What's the secret? The obvious conclusion is that there is nothing to refute the math and the conclusions. Stop pretending there is. It is quite obvious by now that all that can be said it that it's BS.

CE, there are two trails of breadcrumbs to follow. One is easy, as there are actual breadcrumbs. The other is hard because you have to interpret every flash of white as a breadcrumb, whether or not it was real. Then you have to convince the rest of us it wasn't a cosmic ray passing through your visual cortex because, frankly, we don't see it. What we see is an airliner-shaped hole in a building surrounded, at both ends, by recognizable airliner parts, the breadcrumbs. What the hell do you see? And what led you to that nonsensical conclusion?

In fact, Reheat has been called out on it immediately after he came up with the little deception, and over and over again, reacting with nothing but the charming abuse attempts we know so well from the "debunker" crowd. I'll give interested readers the time to catch up before I spoil the fun. Happy Easter!

In fact? Got some evidence?

Yes, an idiot argued 77 did not hit the Pentagon - a "call out"? More like an insane person unable to grasp reality. Was it Balsamo's sockpuppet. Poor Balsamo never got an ATP, never flew left seat heavies.

In fact, Reheat has been called out on it immediately after he came up with the little deception, and over and over again, reacting with nothing but the charming abuse attempts we know so well from the "debunker" crowd. I'll give interested readers the time to catch up before I spoil the fun. Happy Easter!

I hope that you don't seriously take what CIT has posted about American 77. For an example, did you know that CIT has deliberately posted false information regarding American 77 and that their deception routine has been used to discredit the truth movement?

I see no motivation for two law enforcement professionals to lie about their view of such a low flying plane, highlighted by the Pentagon explosion seconds later.

Such contradictions justify an investigation.

On the world stage, the military efforts by the spawn of 9/11 to make America great again might soon make all the topics in this forum ‘moot’.

The testimony of all the witnesses are part of the "official" story, and the already done one and only biggest investigation in history. The only people who need a new investigation are paranoid conspiracy theorists who fail to grasp reality.

The explosion was from a kinetic energy impact of Flight 77, not explosives.
The witnesses can't beat the FDR, Radar and DNA - if you think their statements support some insane claims like CIT had.

Wrong, the false claims and lies from 9/11 truth were moot, wait, they were lies and BS out of the box.

I was laughing as CIT witnesses pointed to the exact direction Flight 77 flew - why can't you figure out the simple stuff, the lies of 9/11 truth. There are limitation human perceptions and memory have, and the witnesses statements don't trump lampposts knocked down, DNA, FDR, and Radar. My favorite error by CIT supporters is the use of "over". Over is not directly over... when we go to the field in an aircraft accident in the USAF, on planes which had no FDR, we would use a yard stick to help witnesses aim to location, not a video of them waving their arms all over.

On the world stage 9/11 truth is a failed movement based on the ignorance of the followers. Sadly, it appears to be like JFK CTs, never ending woo as new paranoid CTers adopt lies and expose their ignorance.

I see no motivation for two law enforcement professionals to lie about their view of such a low flying plane, highlighted by the Pentagon explosion seconds later.

There was never a doubt that American 77 flew very low before striking the Pentagon. American 77 was tracked on radar to the location of the Pentagon and nowhere else.

Quote:

Such contradictions justify an investigation.

No, it doesn't because facts and physical evidence were used to support the fact that American 77 flew south of the gas station before striking the Pentagon. Did truthers bother to ask American Airlines what happened to American 77?

In fact? Got some evidence?
Was it Balsamo's sockpuppet. Poor Balsamo never got an ATP, never flew left seat heavies.

I was amazed how easy Balsamo was able to dupe truthers with false information time and time again. I doubted that he was a real pilot because what he was posting I knew as a pilot of well over 40 years, that he was posting was false and misleading information. However, someone later posted to me that he was a pilot. Anyway, another two years and I will hit the magic 50-year mark as a pilot.

In fact, Reheat has been called out on it immediately after he came up with the little deception, and over and over again, reacting with nothing but the charming abuse attempts we know so well from the "debunker" crowd. I'll give interested readers the time to catch up before I spoil the fun. Happy Easter!

All the north and south witnesses agree, the plane hit the Pentagon.
All the north and south witnesses agree, the plane did not fly over the Pentagon.
All the rationals agree, no-planers are nuts.

__________________In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

In fact, Reheat has been called out on it immediately after he came up with the little deception, and over and over again, reacting with nothing but the charming abuse attempts we know so well from the "debunker" crowd. I'll give interested readers the time to catch up before I spoil the fun. Happy Easter!

Hay, CE. I just found the thread which you may be referring to. It was started by the Lone Bedouin, who I suspect was a Ranke sock.

He objected to my paper using Morin as a witness for the flight paths. The problem is that Morin was touted as one of the best CIT witnesses due to his aviation background (helicopter I think). That was until it was discovered he made your whole charade fall apart. In other words let's drop those who don't support the CT, but keep the others. I think this is a good idea. Actually, the witnesses who said that AA77 hit the Pentagon are the most unreliable from your POV. Use all of the others, but drop those who disagree with your CT about a flyover. How's that for a good deal. Now see, I'm not such a bad guy after all.

I see no motivation for two law enforcement professionals to lie about their view of such a low flying plane, highlighted by the Pentagon explosion seconds later.
...

I have two straight questions for you - simple yes/no questions. You know the routine: I am asking for your simple, straight and honest answer. You know of course that I fully expect you to run far and hide under a rock rather than give me a simple, straight and honest answer, but hey, that's the fun here.

So here are my questions.

A) The same two law enforcement professionals reported that they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. Do you see any motivation for the two law enforcement professionals to lie about where they saw the plane last?

B) Is it possible that these two law enforcement professionals simply erred about the flight path, perhaps because they are mere mortal humans?

Remember, these are yes/no question.
I will help you, as usual and give away the correct answers. You may copy and paste them:

A) No
B) Yes

(I wish someone would bet 10,000 dollars that Criteria will give two simple, straight and honest yes/no answers in one of his next 3 posts - I could use some cash)

Hay, CE. I just found the thread which you may be referring to. It was started by the Lone Bedouin, who I suspect was a Ranke sock.

He objected to my paper using Morin as a witness for the flight paths. The problem is that Morin was touted as one of the best CIT witnesses due to his aviation background (helicopter I think). That was until it was discovered he made your whole charade fall apart. In other words let's drop those who don't support the CT, but keep the others. I think this is a good idea. Actually, the witnesses who said that AA77 hit the Pentagon are the most unreliable from your POV. Use all of the others, but drop those who disagree with your CT about a flyover. How's that for a good deal. Now see, I'm not such a bad guy after all.

In Balsamo'S animation of what he claims Morin said, Morin would have to have done a 180 to see the aircraft.
Morin ran out between the annex sections and reports seeing the tail section until impact. IF there were a flyover, he would have been in a perfect position to see it.

The City can also not bother using Boger as he says he watched the plane from first appearance at the top of the hill until it impacted the Pentagon.

Said it before, I'll say it again; the City would be better off claiming a magical fly UNDER.

The black ops folks are secretly planting wreckage of flaps, fuselage, landing gears, wheels, blown tires, and engine wreckage while other black ops folks were secretly pulling down those light poles when everyone was focused on the impact hole that never was because American 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, it secretly landed at a busy airport under the watchful eyes of air traffic controllers and radar operators while cutting off airliners on final approach and hoping that no one would notice.

Afterward, they called American Airlines that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon which is why American Airlines reported that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon. While all of that was going on, other black ops folks were secretly manipulating radar data in order to make it look like American 77 passed north of the gas station so they could create a conspiracy theory by pulling down light poles to make it look like American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Sometimes, I just don't know whatever comes over me when I doubt a truther.

Are we really still talking about no planes?
Only certifiable retards think there were no planes involved in the crime scenes on 9-11.

Period.

My experience can't be representative, but my perception is that no-planers are a larger proportion of trutherdom than ever before. I think only a minority of Truthers nowaday does not believe in one of the craziest of the crazy ideas: no-planes, nukes, DEW - no-planes being the biggest fad among those.
Those whose ideas are only moderately crazy (such as LIHOP, explosive demolition) seem often motivated by paleo-antisemitism.
(These labels of course apply to overlapping groups)

The black ops folks are secretly planting wreckage of flaps, fuselage, landing gears, wheels, blown tires, and engine wreckage while other black ops folks were secretly pulling down those light poles when everyone was focused on the impact hole that never was because American 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, it secretly landed at a busy airport under the watchful eyes of air traffic controllers and radar operators while cutting off airliners on final approach and hoping that no one would notice.

Afterward, they called American Airlines that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon which is why American Airlines reported that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon. While all of that was going on, other black ops folks were secretly manipulating radar data in order to make it look like American 77 passed north of the gas station so they could create a conspiracy theory by pulling down light poles to make it look like American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Sometimes, I just don't know whatever comes over me when I doubt a truther.

.

You've got that right - black ops teams were out in large masses everywhere.
And they still are: All debunkers are probably black-ops, as are the majority of truthers - all those who sing the confessional of any of the other denominations of Trutherdom.

I recently saw Dan Noel, AE911Truth's man for presenter teams, opine that most architects and engineers in the entire world as well as most governments and government agencies worldwide are part of the superbig conspiracy.
He is boldly leading the Truth Movement to its final destination, which has been prophesized years ago - not by them but by heretic guru RMackey: The inflationary limit of all CTs where the entire world is part of the Conspiracy.

My experience can't be representative, but my perception is that no-planers are a larger proportion of trutherdom than ever before. I think only a minority of Truthers nowaday does not believe in one of the craziest of the crazy ideas: no-planes, nukes, DEW - no-planes being the biggest fad among those.
Those whose ideas are only moderately crazy (such as LIHOP, explosive demolition) seem often motivated by paleo-antisemitism.
(These labels of course apply to overlapping groups)

When you say this are you referring to NPs at all 4 locations or a subset of Pentagon and/or Shanksville? Meaning zero planes were used on 9/11 or they accept the WTC impacts but not at the other locations.

I actually don't know which is crazier. At least No Planes anywhere is consistent. That a plan would involve plane strikes in one location but faking it in another has no semblance of rationality to me.

__________________Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

You've got that right - black ops teams were out in large masses everywhere.
And they still are: All debunkers are probably black-ops, as are the majority of truthers - all those who sing the confessional of any of the other denominations of Trutherdom.

I recently saw Dan Noel, AE911Truth's man for presenter teams, opine that most architects and engineers in the entire world as well as most governments and government agencies worldwide are part of the superbig conspiracy.
He is boldly leading the Truth Movement to its final destination, which has been prophesized years ago - not by them but by heretic guru RMackey: The inflationary limit of all CTs where the entire world is part of the Conspiracy.

For lurkers, a great addition to Oystein's post is RMackey's thread on what he coined Irreducible Delusion. It is where every 9/11 argument eventually devolves: either everything is fake or they're all in on it. Once that position has been reached there is no further discussion because you simply can't reason someone out of it.

I see no motivation for two law enforcement professionals to lie about their view of such a low flying plane, highlighted by the Pentagon explosion seconds later.

Such contradictions justify an investigation.

On the world stage, the military efforts by the spawn of 9/11 to make America great again might soon make all the topics in this forum ‘moot’.

My problem with their interview is that they were conducted together. Brooks should have been interviewed separately from Lagasse so he wouldn't be tainted or influenced by Lagasse's testimony. Interviewers who knew what they were doing would have done this.

__________________Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

For lurkers, a great addition to Oystein's post is RMackey's thread on what he coined Irreducible Delusion. It is where every 9/11 argument eventually devolves: either everything is fake or they're all in on it. Once that position has been reached there is no further discussion because you simply can't reason someone out of it.

Actually, I think you have it right. "Irreducible Delusion" refers to the one belief that every truther clings to in the face of any amount of evidence and simply will not give up, such that the only thing a debunker can do is point out what that delusion is. In this case, the irreducible delusion is that flight 77 pulled up and flew over the Pentagon, a belief that CIT cannot under any circumstances give up. Whereas "Inflationary Limit" is the point at which everyone who doesn't accept a specific conspiracy theory is held to be a member of the conspiracy.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

The City can also not bother using Boger as he says he watched the plane from first appearance at the top of the hill until it impacted the Pentagon.

Apparently, you missed the point of my joke above. It's been a long time. Under the criteria of eliminating all of the witnesses who don't support their CT, that eliminates ALL of them. There are then none left because every single one of the said AA 77 struck the Pentagon. That was the reason for the debunking dog.

Actually, I think you have it right. "Irreducible Delusion" refers to the one belief that every truther clings to in the face of any amount of evidence and simply will not give up, such that the only thing a debunker can do is point out what that delusion is. In this case, the irreducible delusion is that flight 77 pulled up and flew over the Pentagon, a belief that CIT cannot under any circumstances give up. Whereas "Inflationary Limit" is the point at which everyone who doesn't accept a specific conspiracy theory is held to be a member of the conspiracy.

Dave

Yes, irreducible delusion is when all the CTer has left are eyerollies, empty boasts like "reheat called out repeatedly", and silence when dumb statements asserting absence of evidence is evidence of absence are rightfully called out. Or ... they are either Poe or just trolling.

__________________"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Ok, I think it was enough time for potentially interested "Skeptics" to find out for themselves which fallacy Reheat commits with his stunt. It's of course classic case Strawman. All is said about it for example starting here (see long version at the link in that post). Amusingly, Reheat described there quite accurately what he himself did in a typical case of projection, blaming one's own sins on someone else:

Originally Posted by Reheat

He attempts to convince the reader of aeronautical absolutes when, in fact, he stretches his "evidence" by twisting just enough to convince the layman with his typical techno-babble.

Ok, I think it was enough time for potentially interested "Skeptics" to find out for themselves which fallacy Reheat commits with his stunt.

While, of course, we're all aware, I hope, of the fallacy CE commits throughout this thread; the good old fallacy of denying the antecedent. If airliner parts are visible in a photograph, this implies that an airliner has crashed at or near the place the photograph was taken at some time prior to it being taken; if no airliner parts are visible in a photograph, CE concludes that no airliner can have crashed at or near the place the photograph was taken at some time prior to it being taken. CE will not of course be able to discern that this is a logical fallacy due to suffering from, or affecting to suffer from, the irreducible delusion that no airliner hit the Pentagon.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Ok, I think it was enough time for potentially interested "Skeptics" to find out for themselves which fallacy Reheat commits with his stunt. It's of course classic case Strawman. All is said about it for example starting here (see long version at the link in that post). Amusingly, Reheat described there quite accurately what he himself did in a typical case of projection, blaming one's own sins on someone else:

You've been building up to this bunch of tripe. You're really funny CE. You can't name the fallacy because there isn't one.

I'll tell you what... If you will find a witness who didn't say which I depicted in my chart, then clearly state what witness that was. When are you going to learn that witnesses can be mistaken in what they think they saw. I have taken every witness into account and did calculations based on that, eliminating the ones who described something that was impossible.

What you're refusing to admit is that the aircraft could not have completed any of the flight paths described.

Those large turn radii that Ranke drew in color have deceived you along with other things. No, the aircraft didn't fly any of those flight paths because they were impossible to fly based on CIT's own witness statements.

I realize that you want me to drop Morin's statements, but he was the most qualified witness in the group. He said it flew parallel to the edge of the Navy Annex. That was very logical as Paik said the exact same thing and that's where he pointed on the video. But, Morin misidentified it as a B-737 instead of a B-757. The most logical reason he misidentified it was that it was further from him that he thought over the known flight path South of Columbia Pike. He had no other background reference to compare, so it's an understandable mistake. Those two aircraft look very similar, but are a different size. Proper identification depends on the distance away from you that you perceive.

You need to stop posting nonsense. You continue to be fooled by fools and it's not me.

BTW, that analysis is not techno babble as you've implied. It is straight forward aeronautical math. Anyone with knowledge of turn radii as related to bank angle and G's can do it. You're getting desperate to justify why it's wrong. When you're in a hole digging it's best to eventually stop if you want to get out.

Ok, I think it was enough time for potentially interested "Skeptics" to find out for themselves which fallacy Reheat commits with his stunt. It's of course classic case Strawman. All is said about it for example starting here (see long version at the link in that post). Amusingly, Reheat described there quite accurately what he himself did in a typical case of projection, blaming one's own sins on someone else:

Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Fine show of projection there, Reheat. That's exactly what you do in the deceptive piece of junk science you link to in your signature - debunked about three years ago but still peddled by 911myths.

You post nuts at LC forum saying Flight 77 NoC flight path is possible as a debunking of math? Which flight path that CIT shows is the flight path?
The flight path is in the FDR and Radar data... you posted idiots like SPreston ...

Quote:

To return to the parallel official light pole flight path approximately 370 feet south of the decoy aircraft flight path above the Navy Annex, would require two severe split-second banks (right then immediate left which absolutely nobody anywhere witnessed) of the actual aircraft which was proven to be above the Navy Annex, within less than two seconds time. IMPOSSIBLE. Control surfaces and controls and pilots and aircraft cannot possibly react that fast. SPreston

Who has some fantasy decoy plane, and BS about flight paths. Where did the Decoy plane come from, and where is Flight 77 in SPrestions delusional version of 9/11?

The CIT idiot investigator who does debunk Reheat with this.

Quote:

The north side flight path is entirely aerodynamically possible. It is also what several witnesses saw with their own two eyes. Aldo Marquis CIT

Why use math to prove it is possible when you can just say it. Good job CE, you debunked Reheat using CIT logic; just say it is so, just believe it, it is a religion of woo; you won CE, your fantasy version of 9/11 is safe. Who needs math and physics, when you have woo, and Paik pointing to the official flight path.
What does CIT say about numbers being required, aka science?,

CE's fantasy is safe, even though Flight 77 knocked down lampposts and flew the flight path course recorded by the FDR, CD ignores evidence and goes for the failed interpretation of idiots, CIT, the Certified Idiot Team, the crack investigators for Balsamo's failed pilots who lie about 9/11. Yes CE, witness statements are evidence, but weigh in on the event as opinions in this case. Why do we witnesses when we have the FDR. And the link you says debunks Reheat has evidence witnesses on the roads under the official flight path had Flight 77 fly right over them... debunking the NoC. Thus, you debunk CIT with a link to LC nuts failing to accept or talk about the FDR and Radar, or any witnesses who don't support the NoC.

Math/Science/Physics lost to CIT, CE's fantasy version of 9/11, which remains a mystery, is safe. Sorry Reheat, take your silly math and sit down, woo wins in the minds of CTs.